Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
3
Metaconscious in Social Cognition
Piotr Winkielman and Jonathan W. Schooler
Introduction
S
ocial cognition explains the mechanisms of social behavior using concepts
and methods shared with related fields of cognitive psychology and cogni-
tive science as well as new fields such as cognitive, social, and affective
neuroscience. This approach led to remarkable progress in understanding social
perception, memory, reasoning, emotion, and judgment and offered insights into
real-world social issues, such as optimal decision making, stereotyping, and cul-
Mention specific tural differences (see other chapters). We consider the role of consciousness in
chapters.
a variety of social cognition phenomena. We ask what people are conscious of,
and not conscious of, during perception, memory, emotion, and decision making
and how this matters for social interaction. We review several findings, but more
important, we offer a fresh theoretical perspective on consciousness that differs
from currently dominant views in social cognition. Our perspective is informed by
recent developments in cognitive psychology, particularly in the area of metacog-
nition, and draws on new discoveries in neurosciences.
We start with a few historical remarks, mostly to highlight that, over the years,
psychology oscillated from viewing consciousness as indispensable to claiming it is
unnecessary. We then discuss how to define consciousness and its possible func-
tions and mechanisms. This gives us an opportunity to comment on some cur-
rent debates in social cognition, including the automaticity of purposive behavior
and sophistication of unconscious perception, thinking, and decision making. We
then make a distinction critical for the remainder of our chapter among levels
of awareness and review research on dissociations among mental events that are
unconscious, conscious, and meta-aware. Reflecting the book’s aims, throughout
49
50 Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction
History
Reflecting its philosophical roots, early scientific psychology was fascinated with
consciousness. In fact, one major goal was to accurately characterize conscious con-
tents, which would establish a catalogue of basic mental elements that resembles
in precision the Mendeleyev periodic table (Boring, 1953). The method of intro-
spection assumed that critical elements of mental life (thoughts, feelings, volitions)
are in principle consciously accessible. They might initially escape explicit atten-
tion, but with proper training of focus and reporting, researchers can capture most
essential mental elements and discover lawful relations between them. An impor-
tant assumption was that psychology should be fundamentally interested in “men-
tal” events (i.e., content-bearing, intentional states) but not so much in nonmental
events (e.g., associative chains, reflexes, physiological processes, etc.). Still, even
the early psychologists admitted some role for unconscious processes. For exam-
ple, Helmholtz famously proposed that vision is mediated by unconscious infer-
ences, whereas James debated the role of habits and the subconscious (Kihlstrom,
2007). Behaviorism, and the ambition to make psychology “objective” and equal
to other natural sciences, brought a disfavor for introspection and mentalistic con-
cepts like consciousness. Along with this came the belief that behavior is ultimately
under the control of the environment, and that somehow providing mechanistic
explanations of behavior would make concepts like “consciousness” or “volition”
superfluous (Kihlstrom, in press). The situation started to change in the mid-1970s
when cognitive psychologists revived the “black box” and began to tackle issues
like controlled and automatic processing (Shiffrin & Schneider, 1977), attentional
selection (Kahneman, 1973; Posner & Snyder, 1975), and unconscious perception
(Marcel, 1983). Although few dared to speak its name, there was a growing rec-
ognition that consciousness might be “respectable, useful, and probably necessary Page number of
quotation.
” (Mandler, 1975). Soon, the legitimacy of the topic was fully reestablished and
Page number of now “everyone who is conscious, is studying consciousness” (Churchland, 2005).
quotation?
Psychological journals routinely carry articles on consciousness, as do general jour-
nals such as Science and Nature, and there are journal outlets (e.g., Consciousness
and Cognition) and serious annual conferences (Association for Scientific Study
of Consciousness) exclusively dedicated to this topic. The enthusiasm is not only
limited to psychology. The codiscoverer of DNA, Francis Crick, left genetics for
neuroscience and declared consciousness the greatest puzzle of contemporary sci-
ence. Subsequently, he even called the possibility of a biological account of con-
sciousness The Astonishing Hypothesis (Crick, 1994). Indeed, some of the most Correct to change to
1994 (per references
interesting recent discoveries in neuroscience come from consciousness research- and publication date
ers (Edelman, 1989; Singer, 2000; Tononi, 2004). There is also exciting work in for the title)?
computer science on mechanistic, but not eliminative, explanations of conscious-
ness and choice (e.g., Cleeremans, 2005; Hazy, Frank, & O’Reilly, 2007). And,
philosophers try to bewitch the reader or outwit each other with book titles such
Unconscious, Conscious, and Metaconscious in Social Cognition 51
for personhood with the social cognition view that often minimizes the role of
consciousness in complex thought, choice, and purposive behavior. Despite some
radical “anticonsciousness” declarations (for samples, see Kihlstrom, in press), we
actually doubt that social cognition researchers seriously believe that there is little
distinction between people and robots and would readily concede that only some
goals or decisions are unconscious, and that only sometimes a sense of voluntary
control is illusory. We return to this issue in this chapter.
Functions of Consciousness
A central assumption in social cognition is that mental information is represented
on several levels. Accordingly, much research attention focuses on understand-
ing how these different levels, or perhaps systems, relate to each other (Strack &
Deutsch, 2004; Smith & DeCoster, 2000). So, what distinguishes unconscious,
conscious, and metaconscious representation? This question touches on a more
general problem of the purpose of consciousness—a problem that received a vari-
ety of functional and mechanistic answers in the psychological literature. In gen-
eral, researchers have emphasized the idea that consciousness is associated with (a)
special access to mental content and (b) special functions that can be performed
on this content.
Conscious Access
Several theories posit that consciousness is a representational system characterized
by special access to mental content. One useful framework is the global workspace
theory, which proposes that consciousness functions to allow communication,
transparency, and coordination between the many isolated, parallel subprocesses
in the human mind (Baars, 1988). Consciousness constitutes a global workspace
in which various local processes can “broadcast” their outcomes and talk to each
other in a common “language” (more like a language of thought, rather than actual
language). As a result, the previously independent and isolated local processes
can coordinate, sequence, and structure their actions, thus helping the organism
achieving its goals. For example, by representing tactile, visual, and auditory pro-
cesses in a common matrix, global workspace allows novel cross-modal and cross-
temporal connections (e.g., “The sequence of musical notes I just heard has the
same order as the sequence of colored lights I saw before.”). It also presumably
helps us understand expressions such as “blue mood,” “bitter cold,” “sharp cheese,”
or “loud tie” (Ramachandran, 2004).3 But, more important, this “global accessibil-
ity” of conscious representations makes them available for verbal report and for
high-level processes such as conscious judgments, reasoning, and the planning and
guiding of action.
But, what gives representations conscious or “global” access? Cognitive
researchers often emphasize the role of “strength” (Cleeremans, 2005). The notion
of strength captures the idea that representations require a certain stability and
quality before they can enter working memory, where they can be actively main-
tained, and become accessible for potential report. One determinant of strength
is activation, which in turn is determined by many factors, such as stimulus energy
(longer presented items are more likely conscious than briefly presented items);
familiarity (all things equal, more familiar items become conscious easier then less-
familiar items); recency (more recent items are more likely to be conscious than
older items); and so forth. Representational strength is also influenced by focused
attention—a perceptual amplifier and selector of events (conscious and noncon-
scious) that fall into its scope. Thus, an objectively very weak stimulus can reach
consciousness if it receives attentional processing, and there is little perceptual
54 Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction
Conscious Thinking
Some argue that consciousness enables higher-order, meaning-based, truth-value-
preserving processing of information (Block, 1995; Searle, 1997). In contrast,
the unconscious is restricted to a simpler, associative type of processing. This
Unconscious, Conscious, and Metaconscious in Social Cognition 55
Conscious Control
Consciousness is associated not only with special access to mental content but also
with special operations that can be performed on this content. Several of these
operations fall under the umbrella name “control,” thus linking consciousness to
what cognitive scientists call “executive functions” (Norman & Shallice, 1986).5
One aspect of control is selection. Thus, conscious content can be preferentially
attended to and maintained in working memory or discarded if not needed.
Another aspect of control is intentionality. Action can be deliberately started and
stopped or can be delayed until appropriate conditions appear. Scheduling con-
flicts can be resolved, and new hierarchies can be established. Finally, with control
comes flexibility. Thus, mental content can be used in adaptive, nonroutine ways,
and old response chains can be broken and rearranged. This simple point was
recently elegantly demonstrated in a study in which participants had to come up
with novel titles, musical improvisations, or interesting drawings. Not surprisingly,
participants under cognitive load produced repetitive, inflexible, and uninspiring
works (Baumeister, Schmeichel, DeWall, & Vohs, under review).
One interesting aspect of conscious control is its restricted capacity. Thus,
only few elements can be manipulated at a time; operations must be performed
in a serial, rather than parallel fashion; and there are severe bottlenecks (Pashler,
1998). In fact, it is hard to be overwhelmed by the power of the unconscious
Unconscious, Conscious, and Metaconscious in Social Cognition 57
given how many accidents are caused by people attempting to multitask (e.g.,
talking on the cell phone while driving; Levy, Pashler, & Boer, 2006), not to men-
tion various social and physical disasters caused under the influence of various
consciousness-impairing substances. Conscious operations also require effort
and so are metabolically costly. As an illustration of this point, a recent series of
studies has shown that manipulating an individual’s blood glucose level affects
mental control in basic tasks like the Stroop task, thought suppression, emotion
regulation, attention control, or more social tasks like coping or helping (Gaillot
et al., 2007). This is, of course, not terribly surprising given that measures of neu-
ronal functioning, such as positron emission tomographic (PET) scanning, work
by measuring glucose consumption in the brain, which is enhanced in mentally
challenging tasks (Ward, 2006).
Of course, not all forms of control are conscious. The world is filled with
mechanical devices, not only thermostats, that automatically check for a condi-
Provide 1992 tion of a subordinate process and adjust its operation (Shinskey, 1992). The human
reference. Or should
this be 1979, as body has many systems of complex control loops (e.g., homeostatic temperature
provided?
and blood sugar mechanisms). Further, several “mental” processes automatically
adjust their operation based on contextual conditions (Carver & Scheier, 1990).
Thus, people unconsciously regulate eye movements to facilitate text processing
(Reichle, Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998) and unconsciously adjust hand move-
ments to capture the desired object (Triesch, Ballard, Hayhoe, & Sullivan, 2003).
Finally, people are typically unaware of several aspects of control required for
coherent speaking and writing.
In the domain of social cognition, there are many proposals that individuals
engage in all kinds of automatic control (Fitzsimons & Bargh, 2004). One case is
the pursuit of “unconscious goals.” The evidence for this comes from studies in
which individuals primed subliminally or unobtrusively with goal-related words
(e.g., “cooperate,” “achieve,” “memorize”) show corresponding adjustment in their
behavior (e.g., show more helpful behavior, solve more problems, or remember
more details). Further, they appear to be sensitive to conditions under which the
goal is appropriate and track success at goal pursuit. These findings are interest-
ing, but note that control explored in these studies is very different from control in
research on executive functions. First, the unconscious goal paradigms rely on an
unobtrusive activation of preformulated, standard goals, rather than formulation
of novel goals. Second, those goals do not require participants to overcome a stron-
ger alternative behavior (e.g., go against prepotent tendency), but operate when
behavioral choices are already predetermined (participants can either cooperate or
compete, with the likelihood of either action relatively equal). Third, the outcomes
are fairly unimportant and do not require participants to reflect on the meaning
or consequences of their actions. Accordingly, we suspect that many effects attrib-
uted to unconscious goals simply reflect influence of primes on interpretation of
a vague experimental situation, including giving participants an idea of what and
how much they are supposed to do (see Förster, Liberman, & Friedman, 2007, for
discussion).6 Finally, while unconscious goal activation clearly operates under some
conditions, unconscious goals have yet to be shown to possess anything approach-
ing the potency or flexibility of conscious goals.7
58 Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction
are specifically instructed to be vigilant for such lapses. In sum, explicit monitor-
ing level (metaconsciousness) acts in effect like the pilot of an airplane. Although
the autopilot system can handle mild adjustments due to normal shifts in wind and
other conditions, when anything major occurs, the pilot is still needed to handle
the situation. This second level of regulation has many more resources available
to it, but because it draws on conscious processing, it is resource demanding and,
as argued in this chapter, can even interfere with carrying out concurrent tasks.
Thus, it is important to activate it only when needed as often the most effective
performance may occur when individuals can smoothly operate without having to
deliberately reflect on what they are doing.
Access Dissociations
An interesting dissociation occurs when a person is an affective state (as dem-
onstrated by its impact on behavior, physiology, and cognition) without having
Should this be conscious access to that state (see Winkielman, Berridge, & Wilbarger, 2005, for
2005a or 2005b?
comprehensive discussion). This idea of “unconscious affect” may seem initially
strange, but note that, evolutionarily speaking, conscious representation of affect
is a late achievement compared with the ability to respond affectively to relevant
stimuli, which is presented in animals as simple as fish and reptiles. Accordingly,
60 Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction
the basic affective neurocircuitry is contained in the subcortical brain and can
operate even in the absence of cortex (Berridge, 2003). However, evolutionary
and neuroscientific considerations can only be suggestive of unconscious affect
in typical humans. Accordingly, Winkielman et al. (2005) have tested this pro- Should this be
2005a or 2005b?
posal in psychological studies aimed at dissociating the impact of simple affective
stimuli on behavior from their impact on conscious feelings. For example, in one
study participants were subliminally presented with a series of happy, neutral, or
angry emotional facial expressions. Immediately after the subliminal affect induc-
tion, participants rated their conscious feelings and poured and consumed a novel
drink. The results showed that the ratings of conscious feelings were unaffected by
affective faces, even though the faces influenced consumption behavior, especially
when participants were thirsty. Importantly, participants in those studies had no
access to their affective reaction even when attending on-line to their feelings or
even when they were told these feelings could bias their judgment (Winkielman,
Zajonc, & Schwarz, 1997). Similarly, Förster (2003) found that manipulations of
basic affective tendencies, via arm flexion versus arm extension, influence food
intake without influencing conscious experience of moods. In sum, all these find-
ings suggest that one can obtain genuine “access dissociation” between an underly-
ing affective process and its conscious awareness.8
Temporal Dissociations
Sometimes, mental content is consciously experienced without being explicitly
appraised in metaconsciousness. Temporal dissociations are illustrated by cases in
which the induction of metaconsciousness causes one to assess aspects of experi-
ence that had previously eluded explicit appraisal. Several phenomena represent
such dissociations.
that they are experienced but lack metaconsciousness, the latter only taking hold
when individuals run into difficulty.
Translation Dissociations
The idea that metaconsciousness requires rerepresenting the contents of conscious-
ness suggests that some information may become lost or distorted in the transla-
tion, as with any recoding process. The likelihood of noise entering the translation
process may be particularly great when individuals (a) verbally reflect on inher-
ently nonverbal experiences, (b) are motivated to misrepresent their experience, or
(c) possess a lay theory that is inconsistent with their actual experience.
Verbal Reflection There are some experiences that are inherently difficult
to put into words: the structure of a face, the taste of a wine, complex tonalities
of Stravinsky, the intuitions leading to insights. If individuals attempt to verbalize
these inherently nonverbal and holistic experiences, the resulting rerepresentations
may fail to do justice to the original experience. Schooler and Engstler-Schooler
(1990) examined the effects of describing faces, which, because of their holistic
62 Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction
nature, are notoriously difficult to commit to words. Participants viewed a face and
subsequently either described it in detail or engaged in an unrelated verbal activity.
When given a recognition test that included a different photograph of the target
face, along with similar distractors, verbalization participants performed substan-
tially worse than controls. This effect of verbalization, termed verbal overshadow-
ing, has been found in variety of other domains of visual memory (Schooler, Fiore,
& Brandimonte (1997), including colors (Schooler & Engstler-Schooler, 1990) and
shapes (Brandimonte, Schooler, & Gabbino, 1997) as well as other modalities such
as audition (Schooler et al., 1997) and taste (Melcher & Schooler, 1996). Similar
disruptions resulting from verbal reflection have also been observed in various
other domains hypothesized to rely on nonverbal cognition. Thinking aloud during
problem solving can disrupt the intuitive processes associated with insight problem
solving while having no effect on the logical processes associated with analytical
problem solving (Schooler, Ohlsson, & Brooks, 1993). Verbally reflecting on the
basis of affective judgments can interfere with quality of affective decision mak-
ing, as assessed both by the opinions of experts (Wilson & Schooler, 1991) and
by postchoice satisfaction (Wilson et al., 1993). Verbally articulating the basis of
the match between analogical stories can reduce people’s sensitivity to meaning-
ful deep-structure relationships while increasing their emphasis on superficial
surface-structure relationships (Sieck, Quinn, & Schooler, 1999). Of course, in
many cases verbal analysis can be helpful. This occurs when experiences are read-
ily translated into words, due either to the nature of the task (e.g., logical problem
solving, Schooler et al., 1993) or individuals’ unique verbal expertise (e.g., wine
experts, Melcher & Schooler, 1996). However, our point here is that sometimes
the very process of articulating experiences can result in translation dissociations,
where meta-awareness misrepresents conscious content.
Nevertheless, when people who just caught a ball are asked what they experienced,
they rely on their theory of experience rather than on what they actually did.
Acknowledgment
We thank the book editors for inspiration, generous feedback, and incredible
patience. Support was provided by a National Science Foundation (NSF) grant
to P. W. (BCS-0350687) and SHRCC grant to J. S. This chapter greatly profited Spell out SHRCC.
from discussions of these issues with Roy Baumeister, Kent Berridge, Patricia
Churchland, Zoltan Dienes, Hal Pashler, V. S. Ramaschandran, David Shanks,
Jeanne Shinskey, and participants of the Cold Spring Harbor 2007 conference,
New Frontiers in Studies of Nonconscious Processing.
Notes
1. Some psychologists serve as empirical and theoretical “police” on more dramatic
abilities attributed to the unconscious (Kihlstrom, 2007; Merikle & Reingold, 1998;
Shanks, 2005, 2006)
2. North American readers will remember Terri Schiavo, who died in 2005. As a result
of failing several neurological assessments, including tests for purposive behavior, she
was declared unconscious, and her feeding tube was removed (Caplan, McCartney, &
Sisti, 2006).
3. Note that cross-modal integration can be automatized into unconscious, suggesting
that access in the global workspace might be only needed to initially connect novel
sensations and responses. The famous McGurk effect illustrates not only the auto-
matic influence of vision on speech perception but also the value of cross-modal inte-
gration for unity of conscious experience (McGurk & MacDonald, 1976).
4. A believer in the smart unconscious should attempt to solve a novel mathematical
problem, like multiplying 87*65, under cognitive load or expose themselves to this
problem before going to sleep to see if the unconscious provides an answer in the
morning.
5. As Bargh (1989) pointed out, it is sometimes possible to dissociate consciousness and
control.
Unconscious, Conscious, and Metaconscious in Social Cognition 65
References
Abrams, R. L., & Greenwald, A. G. (2000). Parts outweigh the whole (word) in unconscious
analysis of meaning. Psychological Science, 11, 118–124.
Adams, H. E., Wright, L. W., & Lohr, B. A. (1996). Is homophobia associated with homo-
sexual arousal? Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 105, 440–445.
Baars, B. J. (1988). A cognitive theory of consciousness. Cambridge, England: Cambridge
University Press.
Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic influence in social per-
ception and cognition. In J. S. Uleman & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), Unintended thought (pp.
3–51). New York: Guilford.
Bargh, J. A. (1997). Advances in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), The automaticity
of everyday life (pp. 1–61). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Baumeister, R. F. (in press). Free will in scientific psychology. Perspectives on
Update here and Psychological Science.
in text.
Baumeister, R. F., Schmeichel, B. J., DeWall, N, & Vohs, K.D. (under review). Is the con-
scious self a help, a hindrance, or an irrelevance to the creative process? Update here and in
text. Use “unpub-
Berridge, K. C. (2003). Comparing the emotional brain of humans and other animals. In R. lished manuscript”
J. Davidson, H. H. Goldsmith, & K. Scherer (Eds.), Handbook of affective sciences or “submitted” if
appropriate.
(pp. 25–51). New York: Oxford University Press.
Block, N. (1995). On a confusion about a function of consciousness. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 18, 227–287.
Boring, E. G. (1953). A history of introspection. Psychological Bulletin, 50, 169–189.
Brandimonte, M. A., Schooler, J. W., & Gabbino, P. (1997). Attenuating verbal overshad-
owing through visual retrieval cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning,
Memory, and Cognition, 23, 915–931.
Breitmeyer, B. G., & Ogmen, H. (2006). Visual masking: Time slices through conscious and
unconscious vision (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
Caplan, A., McCartney, J. J., & Sisti, D. (2006). The case of Terri Schiavo: Ethics at the end
of life. Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. S. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect:
A control-process view. Psychological Review, 197, 19–35.
Churchland, P. S. (2005, April 30). Brain wide shut. New Scientist, pp. 46–49.
66 Social Cognition: The Basis of Human Interaction
Posner, M. I., & Snyder, C. R. R. (1975). Attention and cognitive control. In R. Solso (Ed.),
Information processing and cognition: The Loyola symposium. Potomac, MD: Erlbaum. Provide inclusive
pages.
Ramachandran, V. S. (2004). A brief tour of human consciousness: From impostor poodles to
purple numbers. New York: Pearson Education.
Reichle, E., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D. L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a model of eye move-
ment control in reading. Psychological Review, 105, 125–157.
Rickard, T. C. (2005). A revised identical elements model of arithmetic fact representa-
tion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 31,
250–257.
Schooler, J. W. (2002). Re-representing consciousness: Dissociations between conscious-
ness and meta-consciousness. Trends in Cognitive Science, 6, 339–344.
Schooler, J. W. (2001). Discovering memories in the light of meta-awareness. The Journal of
Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 4, 105–136.
Schooler, J. W., Ariely D., & Loewenstein, G. (2003). The pursuit and assessment of hap-
piness can be self-defeating. In I. Brocas and J. Carrillo (Eds.), The psychology of
economic decisions. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Provide inclusive
pages.
Schooler, J. W., & Engstler-Schooler, T. Y. (1990). Verbal overshadowing of visual memories:
Some things are better left unsaid. Cognitive Psychology, 17, 36–71.
Schooler, J. W., Fiore, S. M., & Brandimonte, M. A. (1997). At a loss from words: Verbal
overshadowing of perceptual memories. In D. L. Medin (Ed.), The psychology of
learning and motivation (pp. 293–334). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Schooler, J. W., Ohlsson, S., & Brooks, K. (1993). Thoughts beyond words: When language
overshadows insight. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 122, 166–183.
Schooler, J. W., Reichle, E. D., & Halpern, D. V. (2005). Zoning-out during reading:
Evidence for dissociations between experience and meta-consciousness. In D. T.
Levin (Ed.), Thinking and seeing: Visual metacognition in adults and children (pp.
204–226). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Schooler, J., & Schreiber, C. A. (2004), Experience, meta-consciousness, and the paradox of
introspection. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 11(7–8), 17–39.
Searle, J. (1997). The mystery of consciousness. New York: New York Review Press.
Shanks, D. R. (2005). Implicit learning. In K. Lamberts and R. Goldstone (Eds.), Handbook
of cognition (pp. 202–220). London: Sage.
Shanks, D. R. (2006). Are complex choices better made unconsciously? Science, 313, p. 716.
Shariff, A. F., Schooler, J. W. and Vohs, K. D. (in press). The hazards of claiming to have
solved the hard problem of free will. In J. Baer, J. Kaufman, & R. Baumeister (Eds.),
Update here and Psychology and Free Will. New York: Oxford University Press.
in text.
Shiffrin, R. M., & Schneider, W. (1977). Controlled and automatic human informa-
tion processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending and a general theory.
Psychological Review, 84, 127–190.
Shinskey, F. G. (1979). Process control systems (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill. Please mention
in text.
Sieck, W. R., Quinn, C. N., & Schooler, J. W. (1999). Justification effects on the judgment of
analogy. Memory and Cognition, 27, 844–855.
Simons, D. J., & Chabris, C. F. (1999). Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blind-
ness for dynamic events. Perception, 28, 1059–1074.
Singer, W. (2000). Phenomenal awareness and consciousness from a neurobiological per-
spective. In T. Metzinger (Ed.), Neural correlates of consciousness: Empirical and
conceptual questions (pp. 121–138). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Smallwood, J., & Schooler, J. W. (2006). The restless mind. Psychological Bulletin, 132,
946–958.
Smith, E. R., & DeCoster, J. (2000). Dual process models in social and cognitive psychol-
ogy: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems. Personality and
Social Psychology Review, 4, 108–131.
Unconscious, Conscious, and Metaconscious in Social Cognition 69